Is the technique used to collect urine important in avoiding contamination of samples?;¿Es importante la técnica de recogida de la orina para evitar la contaminación de las muestras?

Atencion Primaria

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 140-144

  Cabedo García, Vicente Ramón ^a,c   Novoa Gomez C ^b   Balaguer, Tirado ^b   Rodriguez Morquecho N ^a   Rodriguez Bailo M T ^b   Sola Sandtner A ^a  

^a Centro de Salud El Barranquet   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL GENERAL DE CASTELLÓN   (Spain)

^c Centro de Salud El Barranquet   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contamination Urinary Infection; Prevention; Sample collection

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY; ARTICLE; BLADDER CATHETERIZATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTAMINATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERSONAL HYGIENE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLING; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; URINALYSIS; URINE CULTURE; UROGENITAL TRACT MALFORMATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; RISK FACTOR; URINARY TRACT INFECTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; RISK FACTORS; SPECIMEN HANDLING; URINALYSIS; URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS;

EID: 1842424242     PISSN: 02126567     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1157/13058061     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Schleupner CJ. Urinary tract infections. Separating the genders and the ages. Postgrad Med 1997;101:231-7.
2. Hooton TM, Scholes D, Hughes JP, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for symptomatic urinary tract infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1996;335:468-74.
3. Piñero Acin MJ, Martínez Matías MR, Cordoba Gutiérrez MJ, Sánchez Rojas T, López Juárez D, Rodríguez Alcalá FJ. ¿Modifican nuestra actitud terapéutica los urocultivos? Aten Primaria 2000;26:459-63.
4. Boswell BR, Sanford JP. A screening method for the evaluation of urinary tract infections in female patients without catheterization. Ann Intern Med 1958;48:1040-6.
5. Walter FG, Knopp RK. Urine sampling in ambulatory women: midstream clean-catch versus catheterization. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18:166-72.
6. Leisure MK, Dudley SM, Donowitz LG. Does a clean-catch urine sample reduce bacterial contamination? N Engl J Med 1993;328:289-90.
7. Holliday G, Strike PW, Masterton RG. Perineal cleansing and midstream urine specimens in ambulatory women. J Hosp Infect 1991;18:71-5.
8. Immergut MA, Gilbert EC, Frensilli FJ, Goble M. The myth of the clean-catch urine specimen. Urology 1981;17:339-40.
9. Morris RW, Watts MR, Reeves DS. Perineal cleansing before midstream urine: a necessary ritual? Lancet 1979;2:158-9.
10. Lifshitz E, Kramer L. Outpatient urine culture. Does collection technique Matter? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2537-40.
11. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Scott Richardson W, Rosenberg W. Evidence based medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
12. Dalet F, Broseta E, Cueto M, Santos M, De la Rosa M. La infección urinaria. Procedimientos en microbiología clínica. Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica. Disponible en: www.seimc.org/ protocolos/microbiología
13. Baerheim A, Digranes A, Hunskaar S. Evaluation of urine sampling technique: bacterial contamination of samples from women students. Br J Gen Pract 1992;42:241-3.